About your Search

20130126
20130203
STATION
MSNBC 22
MSNBCW 22
CSPAN 5
CNN 2
CNNW 2
WETA 2
LANGUAGE
English 60
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 60 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the first administration's foreign policy and hillary clinton's tenure at state and i think the defining external event to the administration of foreign policy has been the arab spring, obviously, and all that uncorked and how to manage that. but before we get to that, we still have robin on satellite. i want to talk about the relationship between the president and hillary clinton and the degree to which the legacy of foreign policy in the first term has been hillary clinton's legacy and the degree to which it really has been -- the shots have been called from the white house because a lot of reporting on this has been very interesting. tonight there's going to be an interview on "60 minutes" that's a joint interview between the president and hillary clinton, a joint exit interview, and this is what the president had to say about hillary clinton's legacy. >> hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we've had. it has been a great collaboration over the last four years. i'm going to miss her. i wish she was sticking around. but she has logged in so many miles i can't b
the speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam. if it's carried out, i will resist it. in march 2008 you said, quote, here the term "quagmire" could apply. >> what are these? the full bright hearings? i lived through them? this is kind of like a 1970s movie where you go back into the past where it never even happened. why is he fighting with him about vietnam. >> it's interesting. he's fighting with him over iraq but it seems to be vietnam. he seems to be mad that hagel took issue with him about iraq and compared it to vietnam being the big blunder, which, of course, hagel and mccain both served in. when mccain talks about iraq, he only wants to talk about it from the surge on. it's as if everything before that didn't happen and didn't count and we ask still debate whether it worked or not but the big decision is whether it was as big as vietnam. and he didn't want to have that argument. >> he dug into his ankle here and he wouldn't let go. let's listen again. back again to the old war. >> were you co
be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam. were you correct or incorrect? yes or no? >> when given a chance to respond, here is what hagel said. >> the comment i made about the most dangerous foreign policy decision since vietnam was about not just the surge, but the overall war of choice going into iraq. >> that point found broad support in our latest nbc news/"wall street journal" poll with nearly 6 in 10 americans saying the entire iraq war was not worth it. let's remember that the mccain/hagel grudge goes way back to comments, well, like these. >> well, i think our invasion and occupation of iraq represents one of the great blunters of american history, and we will pay a high price for this for a long time. >> now, that would be in march 2008. you remember, it's the year that barack obama won his first term as president defeating none other than john mccain. do you think mccain is still angry that hagel backed obama? holding a judge? no, never. if mccain played the betrayed besty, fellow republican lindsey graham took the role of disappointed dad over his r
. afghanistan, there's no guarantee of the future. these are -- the foreign policy record, especially as it relates to terrorism, is not much of a record. >> and caryn, you've been covering the foreign policy as well as the domestic policy. this "60 minutes" interview, the joint interview, was pretty extraordinary on the face of it, but as we enter this last week of hillary clinton's tenure, the president is basically saying, you know, thank you, thank you, thank you for everything you've done. >> yeah. and she has been i think in many ways -- there are not a lot of sort of big monumental tangible accomplishments of her tenure as secretary of state. in many ways she was successful as much because of what she represented, but the history of second terms is that foreign policy becomes much more important, that presidents travel more, that they often engage more with the rest of the world, and i think that given the set of events we're looking at overseas, that is very likely to be the case of president obama's second term. foreign policy almost wasn't even almost mentioned in this elect
true? >> it is fairly important. >> thinly vailed as an exploration of his foreign policy positions, the game was more gotcha than global strategy. >> but i'll -- >> sdeshs your judgment as to whether you were right or wrong about the search. >> i'll explain why i made those comments. >> i want to know if they were right or wrong. that's a direct question. i expect a direct answer. >> if you would like me to explain why. >> i actually would like an answer. yes or no. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no. i feel it's far more complicated than that. >> the nominee for defense secretary was reportedly asked to claire fews his hiss position on nuclear disarmament. it proved more an opportunity for senators inhoff and graham to show that he is in favor of immediate elimination of all nuclear weapons. chuck hagel wasn't having any of it. >> my position, some of the individuals national security leaders as senator nunn talked about, including himself, has never been unilateral disarmament. ever. never. we have over the years which i have supported the united states has led in red
foreign policy blunder since vietnam? correct or incorrect? yes or no? are you going to answer the question? the question is, where you're right or wrong? that is a pretty straightforward question. i would like for you to answer whether you were right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate. >> i am not going to give you a yes or no answer -- >> hagel finally gave the answer on the surge that he wanted to give. >> i saw the consequences and suffering and horror of war, so i did question a surge. will this be worth the sacrifice? we lost almost 1200 american during that period was it required, necessary? >> how much of that exchange was political, how much was personal, and how much was related to the defense policy? >> 92, 11, 13. a lot of it was personal. one could not watch those hearings without feeling there were a lot of personal grudges but, even vendettas, being settled. >> center cornyn of texas says he cannot support a nominee for defense secretary who thinks we should be tougher on israel and more lenient on iran. is that a fair characterization of chuck hagel? >
by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam if it is carried out, i will resist it." you continued on and on talking about what a disaster the search would be, even to the point where it was clear the search was succeeding. in march 2008, you said, "the term " quagmire could apply. even as late as august 29, 2011 , in an interview with the financial times, you said, "i disagree with president obama and his decision to surge in iraq as i did with president bush on the surge in iraq ." do you stand by those comments, senator hagel? >> i stand by them because i made them. >> were you correct in your assessment? >> i would defer to the judgment of history. >> were you write are wrong about the search? >> i will explain why i've made those comments. >> i want to know whether you are right or wrong. i expect a direct answer. >> it we reviewed the record -- >> please answer the question -- were you correct or incorrect when you said that the search would be most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? correct o
represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam it's carried out, i will resist it. and then, of course, you continued on and on for months afterwards talking about what a disaster the surge would be, even to the point where it was clear the surge was succeeding. in march 2008, you said, quote, here the term quagmire could apply. if that's not a quagmire, then what is? even as late as august 29, 2011, in an interview, 2011, in an interview with the financial times, you said i disagreed with president obama, his decision to surge in iraq as i did with president bush on the surge in iraq. do you stand by that -- those comments, senator hagel? >> well, senator, i stand by them because i made them. >> were you right? were you correct in your assessment? >> well, i would defer to the judgment of history to sort that out -- >> the committee deserves your judgment as to whether you were right or wrong about the surge? >> i'll explain why i made those comments. >> i want to know if you were right or wrong. that's a direct question, i expect a direct answer. >
dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam. if it's carried out, i will resist it. in march 2008 you said, quote, here the term quagmire could apply. >> what are these, the fulbright hearings all over again? i lived through them. and this guy is going back into some "last year at marienbad" kind of weird 1970s movie where you go back into the past that never even happened. why is he fighting hagel over vietnam? >> well, it's interesting because he's ostensibly fighting with him over iraq, but it immediately becomes over vietnam. he seems to be mad that hagel took issue with him about iraq and compared it to vietnam being the big blunder, which, of course, mccain and hagel both served in. you know, when mccain talks about iraq, all he wants to talk about is from the surge on. it's as if everything before that didn't happen and didn't count, and we can still debate whether the surge worked or not, but the bigger issue is whether iraq was as bad as vietnam, and he doesn't want to have that argument. >> here is mccain sinking his teeth into hagel's ankle here, and he w
or incorrect when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? >> my -- >> yes or no. >> my reference -- >> can you answer the question, senator hagel? the question is, were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> well -- >> i would like to answer whether you were right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer -- >> well, let the record show you refused to answer this question. now, please go ahead. >> if you would like me to explain why -- >> i actually would like an answer. yes or no. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no. i think it's far more complicated than that, as i have already said. my answer is i'll defer that judgment to history. as to the comment i made about the most dangerous foreign policy decision since vietnam was about not just the surge but the overall war of choice going into iraq. >> i think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you're on the wrong side of it. >> s
think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since the vietnam. if it is carried out, i will resist it." the question continued on for months and months talking about what a disaster the surge would be even when it was clear the surge was succeeding. in march 2008, you said "the term quagmires could apply. some reject that term, but if that is not a quagmire, what is? even as late as august 29, 2011, in an interview with the "financial times" -- you said i disagree with president obama and his decision to surge in iraq as i did with president obama. do you stand by those comments? >> senator, i stand by them because i made them. >> were you right? where you write in your assessment? >> i would defer to the judgment of history to assert -- to sort that out. >> the committee deserves to know whether you are right or wrong about the search. >> i will explain why -- >> i want to know if you are right or wrong. it's a direct question. >> the surge assisted in the objective. >> will you please answer the questi
that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam. were up correct or incorrect yes or no? >> my reference to. >> the question is were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straight-forward question. i would like the answer whether you were right or wrong and then you are free to elaborate. >> i wanted to say that that guy was almost president but he wasn't even almost president. >> he's president of the surge. >> he's president of the surge, and he is a grumpy old man. john kerry got a free pass up there. he's a democratic. chuck hagel's just getting lambasted. he's a republican, a colleague. how is this happened? >> he's perceived as a threat to the idea of what the republicans have stood for. here you have a guy who's saying a lot of things that democrats have said, a lot of things frankly that progressives have said. whether he is a progressive, that's a big question. i don't think chuck hagel is a progressive, but he's been saying a lot of those things. the problem is he is a republican voice saying those things so he is obviously a bigger threat
in a they agreed on almost every foreign policy issue. there was even speculation that the president might tap hagel for vice president. well, that, of course, didn't happen but the president did get hagel's endorsement. maybe that's what accounts for some of john mccain's bitterness. mccain isn't the only one who is lining up against hagel though. senator lindsey graham, mccain mccain's new bff also took a shot. he brought up hagel's newest comment that, quote the jewish lobby intimidateed law makers. >> name one person in your opinion who is intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> well, first. >> name one. >> i don't know. >> why would you say it? >> i didn't have in mind a specific person. >> jennifer: that, too went on and on. after the hearing graham, who up until that point had been none noncommittal told foreign policy magazine that he was unlikely to vote for hagel. others went further. senator dan coates gave a 15 minute speech said he would vote no. hagel's performance did not earn him much praise from the other side of the aisle. here is senator claire mccas
he is going to give his manifesto on what republican foreign policy should be. that's going to be next week on ronald reagan's birthday, rand paul. but, you know, it's fitting, because we're coming up on reagan's birthday. and did you hear about the horrible obama muslim marxist thing about his kenyan home? did you hear? >> this is one wall that probably shouldn't be torn down. this apartment building used to be the home of a young ronald reagan. it was denied landmark status, and the university of chicago is ready to demolish it. the university is also trying to become the site of president obama's presidential library. that's drawing strong concerns the university might turn president reagan's former house into a parking lot for an obama library. >> did you hear about that? chicago close ties with the obamas, all of them, tearing down ronald reagan's boyhood home in order to make a parking lot for barack obama's presidential library. did you hear? did you hear? see, here it is on drudge. reagan's home could become parking lot for obama library. here it is on something call
. was that a mistake? >> i don't think that was a mistake. if you look at the overarching ark of our foreign policy, democrats had a sizeable advantage over republicans on the issues of foreign policy and keeping us safe. hillary clinton played a large role in that. if you look at -- i agree with you on the arab spring. got only knows what that is going to turn into. if you look at getting rid of gadhafi, and a large role in whether or not she runs for president because americans don't pay that much attention to foreign policy. >> if she's healthy, given the blood cloth and concussion, if she's healthy, do you think there's any doubt that she's still thinking about being the first woman as president of the united states? >> i have no idea what is in her head. she's certainly a strong institution of the democratic party, certainly stronger than joe biden does. the foreign policy will loom large. we'll ask the question, so what did the obama administration's afghanistan surge accomplish exactly? they sent tens and thousands of additional troops, spent a lot of money. we are going to be out of afghani
any big imprints with foreign policy, what they tried to pursue like having everlasting peace in the middle east, you end up seeing a perspective from both hillary clinton and barack obama where they were trying to put out a lot of fires around the world in a very, very messy world. thank you very much. great pleasure having you on for two segments today. programming note, this wednesday see andrea mitchell's interview with secretary of state hillary clinton. that's at 1:00 eastern time on "andrea mitchell reports" right before our hour. >>> coming up -- >> a minority majority. >> a what? >> the minorities will be the majority. >> the minorities will be the majority. congresswoman nancy pelosi says in july hispanics will become the majority in her home state. how could the state's new minority majority impact the midterms and point the direction or the arrow to texas as well in this discussion. >>> plus, we'll get the latest on the nightclub fire in brazil that's taken the lives of more than 200 people. many of them under the age of 20 years old. we'll have details in the late
.s. wages war and the president's attempts to put an imprint on u.s. foreign policy. today, hagel will have his first chance to publicly respond to his critics, in a 112-page questionnaire requested by the committee, hagel begins to do that on iran and israel. this is what he said in the questionnaire, and he'll be questioned about this today. on the questionnaire, i am committed to considering all options to counter iran and its aggression and to maintain u.s. support for missile defense systems in israel. translation, he's for unilateral military action if necessary against iran. more. "if iran continues to flout its international obligations, it should continue to face severe and growing consequences. while there is time and space for diplomacy, backed by pressure, the window is closing." this is what he says on gay rights in the questionnaire, "i fully support gay and lesbian women serving openly in the u.s. military and am committed to a full implementation of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell." and on the use of force, "i believe we must think very carefully before we commit our arm
of weeks. joan walsh said they broke no news and provided little insight on the foreign policy but there's a remarkable comfort and chemistry between them. what did you think while watching the interview s? >> that's right. no news was broken but president obama did himself a great favor nominating hillary clinton as secretary of state, insulating himself from any sort of primary challenge. also did her a great favor by insulating her from the politics of the last four years. joe biden, i think, is going to be in the center of a lot of the big political fights over the next year and going to see his approval ratings probably take a beating. of course, playing kyoto say this isn't about 2016. what a fantastic launch for hillary clinton. should she decide to run. i think one of the things we have seen over the last elections is that the person who has some strong connection with a base who's a candidate almost drafted by the base does better. mitt romney didn't have that. john mccain didn't have that. i hazard to say i don't think biden has that either. any of the democrats i talked to alw
of a foreign-policy think tank. at his confirmation hearing today, he had some back and forth with former colleagues, including senator john mccain. that exchange is about an hour and a half into the hearing. later, we will get your thoughts about the nomination and hearing on our phone lines at 11:00 p.m. eastern, 8:00 pacific. carl levin chairs the armed services committee and makes the opening statement. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> good morning, everybody. the committee meets today to consider the nomination of former senator chuck hagel to be secretary of defense. before i begin, i want to first welcome senator inhofe as the new ranking republican on our committee, succeeding senator mccain. senator mccain has been a great partner over the past six years, and i thank him for all the work he has done to get bills enacted, his leadership on a host of issues, his support for the work of this committee, and for always keeping our hearings likely. -- lively. senator inhofe has shown his strong commitmen
night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam if it is carried out. i will resist it. and you talk about what disaster the search would become even to the point where it was clear the surge was succeeding. in 2008, you said you hear the term quagmire, which could apply. if that is not a quagmire, then what is approved even as late as august 29, 2011, in an interview -- 2011 -- in an interview with the financial times, you said i disagreed with the president, president obama, his decision on iraq as i did with president bush on the surge in iraq. do you stand by those comments? >> i stand by them because i made them. i will explain why. >> i want to know if you bore right or wrong. >> the search assisted in the objective, but if we review their record -- >> will you please into the question. where you correct when he said the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since the a number of words you incorrect or correct? >> my reference -- and not argue not answering the question? the question was argue right
that with a trillion dollar deficit, and you've got constraints on foreign american policy. but also opportunities. >> let me draw you out on syria. the israeli attack along the border just today. where does an incoming secretary of state come in with the hot conflicts that have a fair amount of confusion about them. >> on syria, i think that what we're seeing is the slow motion failure of our previous policy. not that i've been a critic of it myself. i'm not saying it's easy to find the right policy, but we were hoping the opposition would get strong enough to overthrow assad promptly without any help. however, we could be settling into a long stalemate. i doubt the israeli air strike is going to change that much. so we have to consider now are we going to allow this stalemate just to, you know, move onward. are we going to work hard on the russia angle to get russia to agree to some plan with us? or are we going to do what we need to do to strengthen the opposition and do combined strikes? all these things need to be reassessed. because the previous policy i'm getting close to saying has failed.
to a documentary, mobilely focused on reagan's foreign policy as it pertains to the soviet union and prevailing a 50-year cold war. >> yeah, in this case, it was all based on a comment from george schulze during our interview with schulze who said, and i'm more or less quoting that he felt that the reagan administration didn't make a lot of accomplishments in the middle east but at least things didn't go backwards. we decided to explore the notion of whether things actually went backwards. >> it's interesting that reagan as he was leaving the oval office, pat buchanan had said reagan leaving the oval office turned around and looked back right as george h.w. bush is being sworn in and went back to that day in lebanon and said that was the one day that he wished he could have had back. that was the low point of his remarkable presidency. >> well, yeah, and you're referring to the embassy or either the embassy bombing or the marine corps barracks bombing. >> the marine corps barracks. >> we get into a fairly serious way the birth of hezbollah in this film largely based on the kind of power vacuum
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 60 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)